[IAEP] [Sugar-devel] [SLOBS] [SLOB] GSoC mentor stipend motion

[Dave Crossland]

Hi

On 12 May 2016 at 09:42, Walter Bender <walter.bender at gmail.com> wrote:

> As Adam has pointed out, this motion has failed to pass. It seems that
> there is some support of the idea of offering at least a portion of the
> GSoC stipend to mentors who need/request the funds, but the form of the
> current motion, putting the authority into the hands of the mentors
> themselves does not have adequate support. Perhaps someone can craft a
> motion that would be better received by the oversight board.
>

I submit the following motion draft for comments, based on Sebastian's
text, which I believe expresses Tony's sentiment, and pays a courtesy to
Lionel's sentiment. With the existing votes for the previous motion plus
Tony's swing vote, the motion can pass.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1CPQRFvCwj-Az79PB3Y85aK8Pv5Sl1EODs07m9phAS5U/edit


>
> On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 1:53 PM, Adam Holt <holt at laptop.org> wrote:
>
>> On May 7, 2016 3:33 PM, "Lionel Laské" <lionel.laske at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > Disagree.
>> >
>> > Thought I understand that 500$ is lot of money for some people, I think
>> that GSoC is also a way for SugarLabs to raise money. Because we don't ask
>> for an annual fee to member (like other association, for example OLPC
>> France), it's even the only way to hope for a regular contribution.
>>
>> Indeed, Google chose to pay "mentoring organizations" rather mentors, for
>> exactly the reasons Lionel lays out.  If Google wanted to pay GSoC stipends
>> instead, it would have done exactly that, using the word stipend, and
>> incurring the very significant accounting/managerial/compliance costs of
>> managing such stipends.  Google (GSoC) did Not make that choice, though
>> conceivably in future Google should consider international transactions
>> direct to Mentors?
>>
> I think it is a stretch to assert that the reason Google chose to pay the
> "mentoring organizations" is because they didn't intend to pay stipends. I
> won't presume to try to second guess Google's intentions, but in fact they
> do refer to the organization payments as "mentor stipends". And I can
> imagine that bypassing the paperwork associated with making transactions
> with individual mentors would be a strong motivation to pass the fund
> through the parent organization.
>

I agree with Walter; I think what Sugar is doing is very peculiar, and in
fact I had the incorrect impression from the GSoC website that I would be
paid directly by them.

(The paperwork is actually not that much, because they use one of those
'gift card' like debit card vendors to send the payments, so all they need
is a name and mailing address to send what is for a company like that a
token amount.)


> Until that distant day, mentors/tutors/teachers are insufficiently
>> recognized, just like the mentoring organization is insufficiently
>> recognized, in the constructionist ethos especially we are all learning ;-)
>>
>> In conclusion, I abstain because my own opinion is that a $500 pass-thru
>> to the mentor shows a lack of respect for the organization/ops backstopping
>> of our overall *joint* efforts ~ in the same way that $500 to the
>> organization shows a similar lack of respect for certain particularly
>> dedicated mentors.
>>
> I don't see how the proposal to pay mentors stipends in any way shows lack
> of respect to either Sugar Labs, its volunteer community, or the mentors
> themselves.
>

I agree. Adam, please could you tell us more about why you think GSOC
payments to mentors (and presumably students as well, being several
multiples of the mentor's fee) are disrespectful; do you think that GSOC
itself is disrespectful, and Sugar Labs should not engage in it in future?


> Personally I'd be in favor of splitting $500 GSoC payments between
>> organization and mentors-in-need ($250 each) particularly those mentors in
>> low-income countries (of those most demonstrably catalyzed by a $250
>> Honorarium) if such a consensus later emerges.
>>
> In fact, whereas most of the mentors were not intending to take the money,
> the outcome would have been even more generous to Sugar Labs than the plan
> you are proposing.
>

Well, Adam is suggesting to discriminate based on location, rather than
actual need, and I think of the dozen mentors who joined the GSOC web app,
only 2 or 3 are not in or from high income countries.

But I disagree with such discrimination; if a mentor is currently
unemployed in NYC, then I think for anyone unemployed anywhere then $500
can make a big difference; however by the time the stipend becomes
available, such a mentor hopefully could have become employed! :) But if
not, the need will surely be greater than it would be at the start of the
GSOC.

> Lionel's warning should not be ignored, if anyone cares about
>> inter-generational leadership: in the apprentice system the parents of
>> mentees who can afford it would very happily Pay Sugar Labs (Mentoring
>> Organization), much like users of Wikipedia happily Pay annual donations,
>> much like members of OLPC France happily Pay for something they believe
>> in...  (What other learning economies surround us, that we may not even
>> realize??)
>>
> I have volunteered time and money to Sugar Labs over the years and plan to
> continue to do so. But I think it is a mistake to assume that every mentor
> has the wherewithal to do the same. Community members already "pay for
> something they believe in" by donating their time, expertise, et al. to
> Sugar Labs. Not everyone has the financial resources of those of us who
> live in North America or Western Europe.
>

Kindly I think Lionel's warning is off base since this year there is
already a reasonable amount of capital already raised, and there are many
opportunities like MOSS and RISE which SL _could_ apply to which would
raise much more funds than the small amount possible if all mentor stipends
are appropriated, but there are not concrete plans for ways to spend the
capital in ways that will grow it and the Sugar project.

My personal view is that drafting, agreeing and executing such plans is
more important than raising more funding at this time :)

However, I have drafted a motion for this also in the above Google Doc link.

-- 
Cheers
Dave
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/iaep/attachments/20160512/eda0dd1f/attachment-0001.html>